Aims. Metal allergy in knee arthroplasty patients is a controversial topic. We aimed to conduct a scoping review to clarify the management of metal allergy in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. Studies were identified by searching electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase, from their inception to November 2020, for studies evaluating TKA patients with metal hypersensitivity/allergy. All studies reporting on diagnosing or managing metal hypersensitivity in TKA were included. Data were extracted and summarized based on study design, study population, interventions and outcomes. A practical guide is then formulated based on the available evidence. Results. We included 38 heterogeneous studies (two randomized controlled trials, six comparative studies, 19 case series, and 11 case reports). The evidence indicates that metal hypersensitivity is a rare complication with some histopathological features leading to pain and dissatisfaction with no reliable screening tests preoperatively. Hypoallergenic implants are viable alternatives for patients with self-reported/confirmed metal hypersensitivity if declared preoperatively; however, concerns remain over their long-term outcomes with ceramic implants outperforming titanium nitride-coated implants and informed consent is paramount. For patients presenting with painful TKA, metal hypersensitivity is a diagnosis of exclusion where patch skin testing, lymphocyte transformation test, and synovial biopsies are useful adjuncts before revision surgery is undertaken to hypoallergenic implants with shared decision-making and informed consent. Conclusion. Using the limited available evidence in the literature, we provide a practical approach to metal hypersensitivity in TKA patients. Future national/registry-based studies are needed to identify the scale of metal hypersensitivity, agreed diagnostic criteria, and management strategies. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):785–795

Aims. Periprosthetic hip and knee infection remains one of the most severe complications following arthroplasty, with an incidence between 0.5% to 1%. This study compares the outcomes of revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hip and knee arthroplasty prior to and after implementation of a specialist PJI multidisciplinary team (MDT). Methods. Data was retrospectively analyzed from a single centre. In all, 29 consecutive joints prior to the implementation of an infection MDT in November 2016 were compared with 29 consecutive joints subsequent to the MDT conception. All individuals who underwent a debridement antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure, a one-stage revision, or a two-stage revision for an acute or chronic PJI in this time period were included. The definition of successfully treated PJI was based on the Delphi international multidisciplinary consensus. Results. There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics or comorbidities between the groups. There was also no significant difference in length of overall hospital stay (p = 0.530). The time taken for formal microbiology advice was significantly shorter in the post MDT group (p = 0.0001). There was a significant difference in failure rates between the two groups (p = 0.001), with 12 individuals (41.38%) pre-MDT requiring further revision surgery compared with one individual (6.67%) post-MDT inception. Conclusion. Our standardized multidisciplinary approach for periprosthetic knee and hip joint infection shows a significant reduction in failure rates following revision surgery. Following implementation of our MDT, our success rate in treating PJI is 96.55%, higher than what current literature suggests. We advocate the role of a specialist infection MDT in the management of patients with a PJI to allow an individualized patient-centred approach and care plan, thereby reducing postoperative complications and failure rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):509–514

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are being used increasingly in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We conducted a systematic review aimed at identifying psychometrically sound PROMs by appraising their measurement properties. Studies concerning the development and/or evaluation of the measurement properties of PROMs used in a TKA population were systematically retrieved via PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus. Ratings for methodological quality and measurement properties were conducted according to updated COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. Of the 155 articles on 34 instruments included, nine PROMs met the minimum requirements for psychometric validation and can be recommended to use as measures of TKA outcome: Oxford Knee Score (OKS); OKS–Activity and Participation Questionnaire (OKS-APQ); 12-item short form Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome (KOOS-12); KOOS Physical function Short form (KOOS-PS); Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index-Total Knee Replacement function short form (WOMAC-TKR); Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS); Forgotten Joint Score (FJS); Patient’s Knee Implant Performance (PKIP); and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score. The pain and function subscales in WOMAC, as well as the pain, function, and quality of life subscales in KOOS, were validated psychometrically as standalone subscales instead of as whole instruments. However, none of the included PROMs have been validated for all measurement properties. Thus, further studies are still warranted to evaluate those PROMs. Use of the other 25 scales and subscales should be tempered until further studies validate their measurement properties. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(3):203–217

Aims. The follow-up interval of a study represents an important aspect that is frequently mentioned in the title of the manuscript. Authors arbitrarily define whether the follow-up of their study is short-, mid-, or long-term. There is no clear consensus in that regard and definitions show a large range of variation. It was therefore the aim of this study to systematically identify clinical research published in high-impact orthopaedic journals in the last five years and extract follow-up information to deduce corresponding evidence-based definitions of short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up. Methods. A systematic literature search was performed to identify papers published in the six highest ranked orthopaedic journals during the years 2015 to 2019. Follow-up intervals were analyzed. Each article was assigned to a corresponding subspecialty field: sports traumatology, knee arthroplasty and reconstruction, hip-preserving surgery, hip arthroplasty, shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, hand and wrist, foot and ankle, paediatric orthopaedics, orthopaedic trauma, spine, and tumour. Mean follow-up data were tabulated for the corresponding subspecialty fields. Comparison between means was conducted using analysis of variance. Results. Of 16,161 published articles, 590 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 321 were of level IV evidence, 176 level III, 53 level II, and 40 level I. Considering all included articles, a long-term study published in the included high impact journals had a mean follow-up of 151.6 months, a mid-term study of 63.5 months, and a short-term study of 30.0 months. Conclusion. The results of this study provide evidence-based definitions for orthopaedic follow-up intervals that should provide a citable standard for the planning of clinical studies. A minimum mean follow-up of a short-term study should be 30 months (2.5 years), while a mid-term study should aim for a mean follow-up of 60 months (five years), and a long-term study should aim for a mean of 150 months (12.5 years). Level of Evidence: Level I. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):344–350

Aims. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BCA) have been associated with improved functional outcomes compared to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in suitable patients, although the reason is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to measure how the different arthroplasties affect knee extensor function. Methods. Extensor function was measured for 16 cadaveric knees and then retested following the different arthroplasties. Eight knees underwent medial UKA then BCA, then posterior-cruciate retaining TKA, and eight underwent the lateral equivalents then TKA. Extensor efficiency was calculated for ranges of knee flexion associated with common activities of daily living. Data were analyzed with repeated measures analysis of variance (α = 0.05). Results. Compared to native, there were no reductions in either extension moment or efficiency following UKA. Conversion to BCA resulted in a small decrease in extension moment between 70° and 90° flexion (p < 0.05), but when examined in the context of daily activity ranges of flexion, extensor efficiency was largely unaffected. Following TKA, large decreases in extension moment were measured at low knee flexion angles (p < 0.05), resulting in 12% to 43% reductions in extensor efficiency for the daily activity ranges. Conclusion. This cadaveric study found that TKA resulted in inferior extensor function compared to UKA and BCA. This may, in part, help explain the reported differences in function and satisfaction differences between partial and total knee arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(1):1–9

Aims. Histology is an established tool in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Different thresholds, using various infection definitions and histopathological criteria, have been described. This study determined the performance of different thresholds of polymorphonuclear neutrophils (≥ 5 PMN/HPF, ≥ 10 PMN/HPF, ≥ 23 PMN/10 HPF) , when using the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS), Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2018 criteria for PJI. Methods. A total of 119 patients undergoing revision total hip (rTHA) or knee arthroplasty (rTKA) were included. Permanent histology sections of periprosthetic tissue were evaluated under high power (400× magnification) and neutrophils were counted per HPF. The mean neutrophil count in ten HPFs was calculated (PMN/HPF). Based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and the z-test, thresholds were compared. Results. Using the EBJIS criteria, a cut-off of ≥ five PMN/HPF showed a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval (CI) 81 to 98) and specificity of 84% (95% CI 74 to 91). The optimal threshold when applying the IDSA and ICM criteria was ≥ ten PMN/HPF with sensitivities of 94% (95% CI 79 to 99) and 90% (95% CI 76 to 97), and specificities of 86% (95% CI 77 to 92) and 92% (95% CI 84 to 97), respectively. In rTKA, a better performance of histopathological analysis was observed in comparison with rTHA when using the IDSA criteria (p < 0.001). Conclusion. With high accuracy, histopathological analysis can be supported as a confirmatory criterion in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infections. A threshold of ≥ five PMN/HPF can be recommended to distinguish between septic and aseptic loosening, with an increased possibility of detecting more infections caused by low-virulence organisms. However, neutrophil counts between one and five should be considered suggestive of infection and interpreted carefully in conjunction with other diagnostic test methods. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(8):536–547

Aims. The primary aim was to assess the rate of patient deferral of elective orthopaedic surgery and whether this changed with time during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The secondary aim was to explore the reasons why patients wanted to defer surgery and what measures/circumstances would enable them to go forward with surgery. Methods. Patients were randomly selected from elective orthopaedic waiting lists at three centres in the UK in April, June, August, and September 2020 and were contacted by telephone. Patients were asked whether they wanted to proceed or defer surgery. Patients who wished to defer were asked seven questions relating to potential barriers to proceeding with surgery and were asked whether there were measures/circumstances that would allow them to go forward with surgery. Results. There was a significant decline in the rate of deferral for surgery from April (n = 38/50, 76%), June (n = 68/233, 29%), to August (n = 6/50, 12%) and September (n = 5/100, 5%) (p < 0.001). Patients wishing to defer were older (68 years (SD 10.1) vs 65 (SD 11.9)), more likely to be female (65% (44/68) vs 53% (88/165)) and waiting for a knee arthroplasty (65% (44/68) vs 41% (67/165); p < 0.001). By September 2020, all patients that deferred in June at one centre had proceeded or wanted to proceed with surgery due to a perceived lower risk of acquiring COVID-19 perioperatively (68%, n = 15) or because their symptoms had progressed (32%, n = 7). The most common reason (n = 14/17, 82%) for patients deferring surgery in September was the perceived risk of acquiring COVID-19 while as an inpatient. When asked what measures or circumstances would enable them to proceed with surgery, the most common (n = 7, 41%) response was reassurance of a COVID-19 free hospital. Conclusion. The rate of deferral fell to 5% by September, which was due to a lower perceived risk of contracting COVID-19 perioperatively or worsening of symptoms while waiting. The potential of a COVID-19-free hospital and communication of mortality risk may improve a patient’s willingness to go forward with surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-10:663–668

Aims. Modern total knee arthroplasty (TKA) prostheses are designed to restore near normal kinematics including high flexion. Kneeling is a high flexion, kinematically demanding activity after TKA. The debate about design choice has not yet been informed by six-degrees-of-freedom in vivo kinematics. This prospective randomized clinical trial compared kneeling kinematics in three TKA designs. Methods. In total, 68 patients were randomized to either a posterior stabilized (PS-FB), cruciate-retaining (CR-FB), or rotating platform (CR-RP) design. Of these patients, 64 completed a minimum one year follow-up. Patients completed full-flexion kneeling while being imaged using single-plane fluoroscopy. Kinematics were calculated by registering the 3D implant models onto 2D-dynamic fluoroscopic images and exported for analysis. Results. CR-FB designs had significantly lower maximal flexion (mean 116° (SD 2.1°)) compared to CR-RP (123° (SD 1.6°)) and PS-FB (125° (SD 2.1°)). The PS-FB design displayed a more posteriorly positioned femur throughout flexion. Furthermore, the CR-RP femur was more externally rotated throughout kneeling. Finally, individual patient kinematics showed high degrees of variability within all designs. Conclusion. The increased maximal flexion found in the PS-FB and CR-RP designs were likely achieved in different ways. The PS-FB design uses a cam-post to hold the femur more posteriorly preventing posterior impingement. The external rotation within the CR-RP design was surprising and hasn’t previously been reported. It is likely due to the polyethylene bearing being decoupled from flexion. The findings of this study provide insights into the function of different knee arthroplasty designs in the context during deep kneeling and provide clinicians with a more kinematically informed choice for implant selection and may allow improved management of patients' functional expectations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):105–112

Objectives. A patient-centred approach, usually achieved through shared decision making, has the potential to help improve decision making around knee arthroplasty surgery. However, such an approach requires an understanding of the factors involved in patient decision making. This review’s objective is to systematically examine the qualitative literature surrounding patients’ decision making in knee arthroplasty. Methods. A systematic literature review using Medline and Embase was conducted to identify qualitative studies that examined patients’ decision making around knee arthroplasty. An aggregated account of what is known about patients’ decision making in knee arthroplasties is provided. Results. Seven studies with 234 participants in interviews or focus groups are included. Ten themes are replicated across studies, namely: expectations of surgery; coping mechanisms; relationship with clinician; fear; pain; function; psychological implications; social network; previous experience of surgery; and conflict in opinions. Conclusions. This review is helpful in not only directing future research to areas that are not understood, or require confirmation, but also in highlighting areas that future interventions could address. These include those aimed at delivering information, which are likely to affect the satisfaction rate, demand, and use of knee arthroplasties. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2015;4;163–169

Aims

To evaluate mid-to long-term patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of endoprosthetic reconstruction after resection of malignant tumours arising around the knee, and to investigate the risk factors for unfavourable PROMs.

Aims

This study investigates whether primary knee arthroplasty (KA) restores health-related quality of life (HRQoL) to levels expected in the general population.

Aims

The primary aim of this prospective, multicentre study is to describe the rates of returning to golf following hip, knee, ankle, and shoulder arthroplasty in an active golfing population. Secondary aims will include determining the timing of return to golf, changes in ability, handicap, and mobility, and assessing joint-specific and health-related outcomes following surgery.

The April 2023 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Does bariatric surgery reduce complications after total knee arthroplasty?; Mid-flexion stability in total knee arthroplasties implanted with kinematic alignment: posterior-stabilized versus medial-stabilized implants; Inflammatory response in robotic-arm-assisted versus conventional jig-based total knee arthroplasty; Journey II bicruciate stabilized (JII-BCS) and GENESIS II total knee arthroplasty: the CAPAbility, blinded, randomized controlled trial; Lifetime risk of revision and patient factors; Platelet-rich plasma use for hip and knee osteoarthritis in the USA; Where have the knee revisions gone?; Tibial component rotation in total knee arthroplasty: CT-based study of 1,351 tibiae.

Aims

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the provision of arthroplasty services in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This study aimed to quantify the backlog, analyze national trends, and predict time to recovery.

The August 2023 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Curettage and cementation of giant cell tumour of bone: is arthritis a given?; Anterior knee pain following total knee arthroplasty: does the patellar cement-bone interface affect postoperative anterior knee pain?; Nickel allergy and total knee arthroplasty; The use of artificial intelligence for the prediction of periprosthetic joint infection following aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty; Ambulatory unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: development of a patient selection tool using machine learning; Femoral asymmetry: a missing piece in knee alignment; Needle arthroscopy – a benefit to patients in the outpatient setting; Can lateral unicompartmental knees be done in a day-case setting?

Aims

The rate of day-case total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the UK is currently approximately 0.5%. Reducing length of stay allows orthopaedic providers to improve efficiency, increase operative throughput, and tackle the rising demand for joint arthroplasty surgery and the COVID-19-related backlog. Here, we report safe delivery of day-case TKA in an NHS trust via inpatient wards with no additional resources.

Aims

The aim of this study was to describe and compare joint-specific and generic health-related quality of life outcomes of the first versus second knee in patients undergoing staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty (BTKA) for osteoarthritis.

Aims. As the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic passes, the challenge shifts to safe resumption of routine medical services, including elective orthopaedic surgery. Protocols including pre-operative self-isolation, COVID-19 testing, and surgery at a non-COVID-19 site have been developed to minimize risk of transmission. Despite this, it is likely that many patients will want to delay surgery for fear of contracting COVID-19. The aim of this study is to identify the number of patients who still want to proceed with planned elective orthopaedic surgery in this current environment. Methods. This is a prospective, single surgeon study of 102 patients who were on the waiting list for an elective hip or knee procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline characteristics including age, ASA grade, COVID-19 risk, procedure type, surgical priority, and admission type were recorded. The primary outcome was patient consent to continue with planned surgical care after resumption of elective orthopaedic services. Subgroup analysis was also performed to determine if any specific patient factors influenced the decision to proceed with surgery. Results. Overall, 58 patients (56.8%) wanted to continue with planned surgical care at the earliest possibility. Patients classified as ASA I and ASA II were more likely to agree to surgery (60.5% and 60.0%, respectively) compared to ASA III and ASA IV patients (44.4% and 0.0%, respectively) (p = 0.01). In addition, patients undergoing soft tissue knee surgery were more likely to consent to surgery (90.0%) compared to patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty (68.6%), primary knee arthroplasty (48.7%), revision hip or knee arthroplasty (0.0%), or hip and knee injections (43.8%) (p = 0.03). Conclusion. Restarting elective orthopaedic services during the COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant challenge. Given the uncertain environment, it is unsurprising that only 56% of patients were prepared to continue with their planned surgical care upon resumption of elective services. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:267–271

Aims

During total knee replacement (TKR), surgeons can choose whether or not to resurface the patella, with advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Recently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended always resurfacing the patella, rather than never doing so. NICE found insufficient evidence on selective resurfacing (surgeon’s decision based on intraoperative findings and symptoms) to make recommendations. If effective, selective resurfacing could result in optimal individualized patient care. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of primary TKR with always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing.